 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mathews v. Gary9/5/2000
dgment against one tort-feasor for less than the full amount of the judgment is barred from maintaining a second action against another tort-feasor for the same harm." Id. at 172. That case involved a plaintiff who (1) was injured in a motor vehicle collision, (2) filed a lawsuit against the other driver, (3) filed a second lawsuit alleging medical malpractice in the treatment she received as a result of the auto accident, and (4) settled her claim against the defendant driver while the second suit was still pending.
According to the Brandt Court, although a plaintiff "may obtain a judgment against several tort-feasors for the same harm, he or she is entitled to only one satisfaction for that harm." 312 Pa.Super. at 176. (Citing Thompson v. Fox, 326 Pa. 209, 192 A. 107 (1937); Franklin Decorators, Inc. v. Kalson, 330 Pa.Super. 140, 479 A.2d 3 (1984)). The rationale for this rule is that the remedy provided to an injured person is to receive only one full compensation for the wrong done to him. Id. at 177.
Once the judgment is "marked satisfied," the plaintiff is legally barred from further recovery against any of the tort-feasors because the law presumes that full satisfaction for the harm incurred has been received. Id. (citing Hilbert v. Roth, 395 Pa. 270, 149 A.2d 648 (1959)).
There are important policy reasons and much wisdom behind the traditional rule that a plaintiff who records a satisfaction of judgment must treat that satisfaction as his or her commitment that the judgment has been fully satisfied. Id. at 176.
We are persuaded that the order of satisfaction filed in her Charles County case precluded appellant from thereafter obtaining an award of damages against appellants. While the amount of the auto negligence settlement may not have been "satisfactory" to appellee, when the damage claim that she had been asserting was "satisfied" as a matter of law, she was thereafter prohibited from recovering more funds for the same injuries. Having filed an order of satisfaction in the (auto negligence) Charles County case, appellee could not thereafter assert an "unnecessary surgery" claim in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.
JUDGMENT REVERSED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|